MikePapa1

My only recommendation is that our vet suggested a recipe similar to the one used by the OP, but insisted that we add a quarter cup of bone meal to it. He said dogs need it for proper digestion.

There is some dispute on that, O. Clearly the ATF considers it a pistol, but our DA has his doubts. There is a case pending before the Criminal Court of Appeals, from Sumner County, on that issue. I think the CCA will defer to the ATF's definition, but I'm not certain of that. We should know by midyear.

I'm a Fiji, Phi Gamma Delta, Indiana State a long time ago.

You did that well, Oh, and with far less sarcasm than I was about to employ.

I, on the other hand, carry almost exclusively IWB. Almost all of my IWB holsters, and I'm embarrassed about how many I have, are tuckable. They are pretty concealable no matter how you dress, depending upon the pistol you are trying to conceal.

Probably, the police won't help. If you tell them, and prove to them (A copy of a certified letter to her demanding it back) that you've asked for it back then they MIGHT help you. I'm not a Mississippi lawyer. Almost every state, however, has some sort of small claims court that would allow you to file yourself, at minimal cost, for a return of your property. Go in, tell the Judge your story, show him your paperwork and you'll probably get your gun back.

I don't see a problem with sights. I was trying to decide how I might make something of them and couldn't. I don't see how anyone could fault them.

A big part? Maybe not, but again, civil suits are all about looking reasonable or making the other side look unreasonable. Here's why I would recommend against a trigger job on a carry weapon: ATTY: You modified the weapon from its manufacturer's design, didn't you? WITNESS: Well, no, not really. ATTY: You had the trigger pulls shortened and made easier, didn't you? WITNESS: Well, yes. ATTY: So you decided on your own what time and deliberation the trigger should have as opposed to the way it was designed and built, didn't you? WITNESS: Well, I suppose so. ATTY: So the manufacturer thought the appropriate trigger pull was 5 pounds to give the shooter a chance to decide if pulling the trigger was really necessary but you wanted to shoot more quickly because you thought you knew better than the people who designed and built the gun. Is that right? Again, with a good cross exam, the answers are really irrelevant. The best advice is no modification.

Civil cases are all about appearing to be reasonable. A bazooka might make one appear to be unreasonable. As to the DA, my gut is yes, but I've not seen any caselaw to support that.

Remember, Mike, in a civil case, all I'm required to prove is more likely than not. The preponderance of the evidence is a relatively low standard. I think a trigger job, after my expert testifies that it makes the pistol discharge more quickly and easier than the stock trigger, places you at risk in a civil case. Think I could make the jury believe you were probably negligent with the following cross exam? ATTY: The gun you used to shoot my client was the way the manufacturer designed it was it? WITNESS: Um, yeah, it was. ATTY: Are you trying to tell us you didn't have this pistol modified? WITNESS: No, but.... ATTY: You modified the trigger to make it easier to pull the trigger didn't you? WITNESS: Well, yes, but... ATTY: Then it wasn't as the manufacturer designed it but as you had it modified to make it easier to fire a bullet, isn't that true? WITNESS: I did it for safety? ATTY: You made the gun easier to fire for SAFETY? Is that what you're trying to make us believe? It would go on like that for some time. Frankly, in cross examination, if done the way it should be, your answers wouldn't really matter much. The questions would tell the jury everything I would want them to know. Look, I'm a gun guy, but the guy who actually does the cross exam might be an anti-gun guy out to use you to make a point. As I said, my advice remains the same, but, of course, if my clients actually followed my advice ahead of time, I probably couldn't buy any guns at all. Your results may be different, but I can guarantee you one thing: Your trigger job will be an issue and it won't be used to make you look better.

True, that's the way it's supposed to work. I normally represent people when bad things happen that weren't supposed to happen.

Hence you would argue it's a safety modification. How much would you want to bet that I can find an expert who will be willing to testify that it might also lead to a premature discharge? As I said, these things are fact sensitive, but my standard advice would remain the same. You are better off having a stock gun than having to explain to a jury, some of which will be afraid of guns, why a short trigger is REALLY a safety feature.

A prosecutor as in the criminal context? Probably not, though, as part of a forensic review, the TBI would probably note modifications. In a civil case, I can guarantee that it will be brought up. All records regarding the gun will be subject to discovery and the Plaintiff would have the gun examined by an expert.

Generally, I don't think they would be detrimental (I have a LaserMax, for example, on my Sig 226 that I often carry) but as with most of these things they are very fact specific. I can foresee an attorney asking why you used lethal force when you had access to an aiming device that would allow a disabling shot that would no kill. It's a risk and something I've thought about. I believe if confronted in such a manner I would respond that lasers are an aid but do not guarantee exactly where the shot might go and therefore, relying on my training I sought to disable the threat by shooting at the center mass until I no longer felt threatened. It's a judgment call, but I can promise you it will be an issue if it gets that far. My advice to a client would be no modifications on a carry gun.

I got a chance to see a Lorcin L9mm that was seized by the local police. I looked it up and the list price was $189. It terrified me as I believe its just as likely to injure its shooter as its target.

I'll give you my personal opinion on these issues. Other lawyers may well disagree. In 27 years, I have averaged about two jury trials per year, the majority criminal, but a fair number of civil cases, both as Plaintiff and Defendant. I believe that additional training, depending upon the nature of that training, will be favorably viewed by the jury. My equivocation on that is if the training is of "100 ways to Kill your Fellow Man," I doubt would be helpful but classes on defensive tactics, use of force, etc., would be favorably viewed. Gun modifications, however, unless aimed at safety, would be weighed against you. How much? I honestly don't know, but I genuinely believe they would. I know if I were representing a perspective plaintiff and the defendant had had, for example, a trigger job to shorten travel, the types of arguments I would make. Being relatively familiar, I know of all sorts of valid reasons to do so but even on a jury that included average gun owners, I'm willing to bet I could convince them that such modifications make you look bloodthirsty. My advice would be to keep a carry gun as stock as you can, to avoid those types of arguments. Just my two cents worth.

Hmmmmm. As a man who always wears a hat, I'm trying to decide whether to be offended. By the way, one you missed: g- if your meeting place has over watching snipers, and they are not yours ...... leave

Follow the advice given, use the Bill of Sale example above and you'll be fine.

I absolutely love mine.

I practiced law in Indiana for 16 years before I came here and Indiana's statute is almost identical to Kentucky's. I only saw one person prosecuted under it and he was doing what the statute was designed to stop, using it in his car after knocking over liquor stores to get away.

Another example why when the police ask for permission to search the answer should always be "NO!" Make them get a warrant if they have probable cause to do so.

I believe it was DOA, but that's a personal opinion.

Maybe the tiniest hint of sarcasm. I'm relatively new here, Letreat, so I often don't realize the personalities of those involved nor their motivations. I hope though that I can give you a bit of constructive criticism which might free you from future sarcastic comments. If you truly want to discuss the policies of the US government and its activities, you'd be better served to do so rather than beginning your thread with a childish riddle as though you were the only astute observer available. You see I am a libertarian who is very concerned about the growth and intrusiveness of all government, but particularly the federal government since 1912. I am not, however, a conspiracy buff who attributes this to a secret cabal. It's growth has been open and obvious to any real observer of history and all this conspiracy nonsense does is to distract from the real problem, that progressives have altered our Constitution before our eyes and we've allowed it to happen. Now, as I said, I don't know you. If you want to walk around in your tinfoil hat, muttering about Prescott Bush or whoever, who is long dead, that's your right. If, however, you want to address the slide to tyranny that we, the citizens have allowed, I think you'd have a message to which others might readily listen. All of this conspiracy nonsense does is to portray you as someone who seems to believe that you and you alone have been able to pierce the curtain to reveal those who are really pulling the levers because the rest of us our too stupid to see what you can see. It tends to make you condescending and makes me wonder about your sanity, rather than listen to whatever point you are trying to make. You see, I don't think the Masons, the Jews, Skull & Bones or any of these groups is nearly as powerful and controlling as conspiracy aficionados try to convince me they are. I think the Progressives, have, over the years convinced many in this country that they can get something for nothing and based on that have openly tried to buy votes buy taking the money of others to give it to those who "deserved" it more to increase their power. Just my two cents worth. Actually, at my normal hourly rate a bit more, but you get the idea.

You might see some challenges but I very much doubt their success. First, the 2nd Amendment is almost universally held to deal with firearms, not with clubs, knives or other types of weapons. Those weapons are not really regulated federally and without 2nd Amendment protection, states are free to deal with them in any manner they chose. Secondly, however, at at least as important, your question is, in essence, political rather than legal and frankly, knives, clubs, canes, etc., don't have the lobbying power to really do anything about these laws. I've never heard of, for example, the Tennessee Automatic Knife Association having a very good lobbyist in the General Assembly.

Boy, that's fascinating. I'm glad I spent 45 seconds of my life going through this thread.